RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - A heavily criticized study forecasting Rancho Murieta’s future water needs, the Integrated Water Master Plan, won’t be completed anytime soon.

This update was provided by President Tim Maybee during the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board’s monthly meeting on June 5, which was held two weeks earlier than usual.

In addition to considerable discussion about the water study and a recent town hall meeting on the same topic, the board adopted the 2024/2025 budget with rate increases and acknowledged two recent resignations: District Counsel Andrew Ramos and Director of Operations Michael Fritschi. For more details, see the separate story in the June 28 print edition of the River Valley Times.

Background

Consulting engineers Lisa Maddaus and Dan Scalas are employing a data-based approach to develop the most recent iteration of a water study intended to forecast future water needs given climate change, drought and upcoming development. Both engineers spoke at a town hall meeting on May 30 that drew more than 250 attendees. A summary of their work on the three-phase study, water supply, water demand and water scenarios; can be found on the district’s website.

After briefly reviewing the first two phases, the consultants presented scenarios based on their analysis of the community’s water supply under normal river flows and in a worst-case drought and how each condition would affect both current customers and projected numbers at full buildout as follows:

Current customers would have enough water in an average year, but it wouldn’t meet a state requirement for communities such as Rancho Murieta to have a backup water supply. At full buildout, the water supply would meet demand, although just barely.

In an extreme drought, current customers would barely have enough water even with an assumed 30% water cutback. At full buildout, the water system would fail. But with an augmented water supply, the community would have sufficient water in an extreme drought at full buildout.

The consultants recommend augmenting the water supply by using Lake Clementia for drinking water and digging emergency wells. They also assume the golf courses could be irrigated with river water and that more recycled water will be available at buildout.

Although not in their recommendations, water conservation measures could also be implemented: 30% in normal conditions and 50% in extreme drought. A 30% cutback in an average year would be the least expensive way that the community could meet a state requirement for a backup water supply without using Clementia or groundwater wells.

Before and during the town hall, community critics, primarily John Merchant and Janis Eckard, argued that assumptions used in the water study are unfeasible or incorrect. They based their claims on extensive research.

Maddaus, one of the engineers, defended their work at the town hall: “I am not here to put fraudulent numbers together for you. Neither is Dan or his team. We are all engineers and professionals.”

Meeting Discussion

The water study was a recurring topic at the June 5 board meeting with comments from the board president, General Manager Mimi Morris, Director Stephen Booth, who facilitated the town hall, and four audience members.

Maybee said he wanted to make it clear “that decisions (about the water study) are not going to be made in the next days, weeks or months. We have numerous items to work through.”

Nor will the board make any final decision until after the new district counsel and a new operations manager are fully briefed, Maybee said.

On the other hand, Maybee said he felt “very positive” that a final report would be completed by the end of the calendar year.

During her general manager’s report, Morris described the information provided by the consultants as sobering: “The message given was that doing nothing is not an option, regardless of whether future development occurs.”

Morris also told the board that her written report included answers to questions about the water study submitted by the public before May 14. The information was also provided as a handout at the town hall meeting and posted on the district’s website. Regarding questions submitted at the town hall, they will be answered by the end of June, Morris said.

Booth, who facilitated the town hall, read a prepared statement about the meeting that included this observation: “Speakers questioned some of the data used by the consultants and there was a strong sentiment expressed that there should be a halt to future development.”

Booth also referred to several obstreperous audience members in his report, noting that “The audience was quick to respond to my requests for decorum and respect for all the speakers.”

During audience comments, resident Carol Prinzo expressed deep concern that only two board members attended the town hall, describing it as a “clear dereliction of duty.” Maybee responded that with input from legal counsel, the board decided earlier this year that a town hall format would be the “cleanest” way to get feedback from the community about the water study vs. holding a board meeting with its legal requirements.

“All the information came to the board,” Maybee assured Prinzo. “I think it (the format) worked pretty well.”

As they did at the town hall, audience members Eckard and Merchant questioned the water study assumptions. Eckhard said the data being used for future recycled water use was “mathematically impossible.”

Merchant concluded his comments by saying: “Everything in there is an excuse for the fact we don’t have enough storage and can’t build another reservoir.”

Audience member Jim Farrell, who described himself as a planner, told the board: “I really like where you are at right now. But you’ve got to call a stop action and resolve these issues around assumptions and data and money.”

The board’s next regular meeting will be on July 17.